< November 12	November 14 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assyrian bishops to Category:Bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East

• Rename, the current name could refer to a bishop in any church who happens to be Assyrian. However, the description and use of the category indicate that it's only for bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East, so the name ought to reflect that. Mairi 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, the current title includes bishops in the Assyrian rite of the Roman Catholic Church. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Raname. Makes sense given the content. Most of the other reglions split their leaders by nationality so we have categories such as Category:German_rabbis and this rename would avoid confusion with those categories, altough a possible problem with the new title is very long category titles if this was split by religion (eg. "Iraqi bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East"). --MarkS (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist dining (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a tourist or restaurant guide. This category explicitly encourages the use of Wikipedia as such Bwithh 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Delete Changed my vote after good points were brought up. This category is too subjective. Valoem ^talk 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Not all of the 6 restaurants/food carts/food trucks currently in this category have won awards Bwithh 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV. Vegaswikian 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "would be of interest to a tourist" - according to who? And "awarded restaurant" includes the local rotary club awards? Eventually could include every restaurant. (Both due to ambiguity of award winning, and - Q: "I'm a tourist, and I'm hungry, where to eat?" A: Anywhere they serve food.) - jc37 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would require a POV on what awards where noticable enough to count. --MarkS (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn with fire - lots of it, and quickly. Delete as big-time POV. Moreschi 15:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Folantin 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MarkS and Moreschi. Who gets to define what is and is not "tourist dining"? Untold thousands of real, live New Yorkers dine at Serendipity 3 every year; putting it in this category almost comes off as vaguely insulting. --Aaron 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and discussion.--Tlmclain | Talk 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete and mark ((deletedpage)) as recreation of previously deleted category. Closed debate early per WP:SNOW. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block, to become member of Category:Protected deleted categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see relevent discussions.
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_4#Category:Nicole_Kidman_films
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Films_by_actor
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Jim_Carrey_films
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_19#Category:Jim_Carrey_films
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_8#Category:Vijay.27s_films
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Petula_Clark_films -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and block per nom, and as recreation of CFD'd article. Films by actor is a bad idea for categorization, as it does not involve a defining trait of the film and has no ascertainable limits as far as what actors should get categories. Postdlf 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, per above/previous arguments. It's not a defining characteristic of a film. Mairi 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block per nom. Piccadilly 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's useless, impracticable and empty! --Neigel von Teighen 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect. Recury 02:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kill it dead.--Mike Selinker 08:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 11:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, salt it, block it, and use the big eraser to ensure that it remains protected. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Austrian rock music groups, convention of Category:Rock music groups by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, naturally. PeepP 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional murder victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unmanageably huge, very bad idea. This is such an omnipresent subject that Category:Fictional works that do not contain at least one murder victim would likely be smaller. --tjstrf talk 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This may violate the Wikipedia rule about spoilers. The category should be killed. George J. Bendo 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which rule? The one that says Wikipedia contains spoilers? --tjstrf talk 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mark with a spoiler warning. I forgot to check for the spoiler warning before I said that! — AnemoneProje
• Speedy keep The category is very full and is marked with a spoiler warning already. It does not violate policy and is fully relevant. Michael 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spoiler warning doesn't appear in connection with the category tag on articles, however. Postdlf 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification I apologize if I accidently confused any of you, but this nomination has nothing whatsoever to do with this category containing spoilers, and any arguments for or against deletion based on spoilers miss the point entirely. As I noted above, Wikipedia contains spoilers, and should continue to do so. This nomination is based on the category being absurdly large and unwieldy if properly populated. For an example of a category that was deleted for similar reasons of unwieldiness, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 1#Category:People who carry swords. --tjstrf talk 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

Response That's not really an appropriate parallel. This refers to Category:Fictional characters by nature, and may be very telling. The category has also not proven itself to be uncontrollable. If so many apply, then this is relevant. It is not as trivial as those who wield swords. Michael 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply According to the debate people who carry swords was a mislabeled fictional characters category, actually. The entire fictional characters by nature classification system needs majorly reworked. We have a Category:Fictional Aces that contains people named Ace, to give one particularly absurd example. --tjstrf talk 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response To say this is the same would not be wrong. This is more of a defining element to certain fictional characters. I agree that some of the fictional categories are trivial, but this is relevant to characters' states of being. Michael 01:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If the defining element of a character's existance is to have been murdered, why do we have an article on him? If they don't have equally defining characterstics like being a protagonist, thief, priest, from Star Wars, etc. then they probably are a plot object, not a character. --tjstrf talk 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Keep in mind that we do not eliminate articles on characters if they are murdered on a show. It is fully relevant in describing them. Michael 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Their having been murdered in no way destroys their notability in itself. If their murder is the defining point of their existance, however, they will not generally need an article. I randomly picked 20 members of that category and looked to see how prominently the murder featured in their history. Not a single one of them had their murder as the defining element of their character, in other words their murder was a non-notable trait not worth defining by. One of them, Mithos Yggdrasill, doesn't actually mention his having been murdered anywhere in the article. (It so happens he is a villian killed in self defense by the heroes, suggesting some possible POV concerns with this category as well.) --tjstrf talk 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm thinking about all the characters in comics who have died untimeley deaths, and have "returned from the grave". (See: List of dead comic book characters .) Yet, technically, they could still would be murder victims (the Spectre, for example, or Deadman, for another). And TV series? Do we really want to start to rack up supporting character articles for characters who have been murdered? This category could go on, and on. Oh, and how about Kenny from South Park? - jc37 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No one proposed creating articles for those who would fit into this category if they are minor characters. The same could be said about any category if we go under that belief. Michael 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, would include nearly every superhero and supervillain, for starters. (Radiant) 11:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous comments plus my own bitterness about being spoiled by the inclusion of the cat on an article. Heh. Otto4711 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply Wikipedia contains spoilers. Michael 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and because it's absurd for the same reasons as the repeatedly CFD'd "dead fictional characters." See this addition of the category to George McFly; if I remember correctly, Marty discovers that his dad had been a murder victim in one alternate future he travels to in the Back to the Future trilogy, which of course is erased from the timeline by further time travel shenanigans. The status of real people as murder victims is hardly as unstable, or trivial, and fictional characters should only be categorized by traits depicted as intrinsic that define the character, not by what happens to them within a narrative (Category:Fictional characters by hardships to which writers have subjected them). Listify and annotate if you really want to. Postdlf 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Do we have articles on all of these people? No. Of course, a category for dead fictional characters does sound absurd, as it would bring into question whether we should have one for the living. One for murder victims describes a circumstance that brought about demise and is often highly relevant to a television series or novel series. Michael 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, How is this better than Category:Dead fictional characters? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If a character perishes by murder, it is different than if the character might just die or be deceased or any other reason. This refers to certain circumstances leading to a character's death, and if you look, the category is quite full. The information applies pertinently to each of those characters. Michael 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. David Kernow (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Parks in New York City, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Olborne 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Films by actor already blocked. David Kernow (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and permanently block Category:Films by actor, see November 8th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this is allowed then it'll open up the categories to some relly silly ones. -- SteveCrook 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. There is no reason to permanently block Category:Films by actor, since author's works are categorized in this manner. I believe there are far more important issues than this one to debate. SFTVLGUY2 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and block category:Films by actor. It seems we do this every month, so let's at least kill the parent category forever.--Mike Selinker 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, Category:Films by actor is a viable category. I see no reason to eliminate it. ConoscoTutto 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While interesting, whether a single actor was in a film is hardly a defining characteristic for the film. Films by director makes sense, as the director is considered the "author" of a film. Actor filmographies make more sense as lists. Pegship 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The filmography section of the Petula Clark article is better; many of her films have no article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Provelt. The authorship of a book is a fundamentally defining trait of that book. Not true with actors and films, where it may be ridiculously reductionist (categorize Star Wars as a "Mark Hamill film," I dare you), too ambiguous (by what actor do you categorize Magnolia or Short Cuts?), or so trivial that it threatens to unleash a floodgate of categories for the complete cast of every film (Category:Ted McGinley films, anyone?). Postdlf 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block per Pegship Piccadilly 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pegship. The filmography section of the Petula Clark article is very good and makes the category in this case wholly redundant. roundhouse 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a viable category if viewed from the side of the actor. Simply put, this means putting each actor in dozens of extra categories, one for each film they played in. (Radiant) 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually most films could end up in dozens of actor categories, which is even worse. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block per above. --kingboyk 12:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block per this discussion, and the discussion above at category:Films by actor. I disagree with creating dozens/hundreds/thousands of actor categories plus dozens/hundreds/thousands of film categories for no good reason. Book authors is completely different than actors IMHO. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional high school dropouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overcategorisation. How many characters apply? What purpose does this category serve? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we wouldn't cat real people that way either. (Radiant) 13:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Is there no end to these categories of fictional people with oddly-chosen individual characteristics? What next? Category:Fictional people who like anchovies? George J. Bendo 14:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there's no reason to have a complete category of fictional characters by education level and without that higher-order category this one is just silly. --tjstrf talk 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high school dropouts and Category:High school dropouts. - jc37 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per George J. Bendo. --kingboyk 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and discussion.--Tlmclain | Talk 16:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Georgia, USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, This cat is obsolete, replaced by Category:Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state). Philip Stevens 11:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. —Cswrye 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state).--Tlmclain | Talk 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fifth World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transferred from PROD and PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.44.128 06:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catagory has no articles beneath it. Non-notable. user:Lendorien 22:34, 12 November 2006

• Delete per PROD nom. 132.205.44.128 06:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty and devoid of context. The single bit of context that there is (subcategorization under micronation) makes it look like it's probably a neologism. --tjstrf talk 00:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First, I found: Fifth World (Native American mythology) has a link at the top saying: For Fifth World nations, see micronation. Then I found this link. - jc37 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Universities and colleges of Wisconsin to Category:Images of universities and colleges of Wisconsin

I incorrectly and improperly created the category for images of the state's university and colleges. There already is a category for the state's university and colleges called Category:Universities and colleges in Wisconsin. Ineligible for speedy. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as incorrect creator and CFD nominator. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to use my AWB to fix this problem if the closing admin wishes. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 06:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People by city in Scotland to Category:People by city or town in Scotland

• Rename,

As a result of the creation and inclusion of Category:People from Motherwell and Category:People from Arbroath this category no longer contains only cities and should be renamed accordingly. There is an official distinction between city and town status in the United Kingdom (see City status in the United Kingdom) with only Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Stirling being considered Scottish cities. See this for a similar situation with regards to England. Caledonian Place 01:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pixar voice actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
"This person voiced a character for Pixar" doesn't seem like a distinctive enough categorization to me, and it opens up a big can of worms: "Disney voice actors", "Dreamworks voice actors", "Miramax actors", etc. Powers ^T 01:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RMS Oceanic 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/listify, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 13:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appearing in a Pixar film is a notable achievement. Tim! 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't categorize any other actors by the production companies of the films in which they have worked. Why would we do it with voice actors for Pixar? No indication that it's a defining classification ("Pixar voice actor Tom Hanks was seen today at a NYC club, with Miramax actor Harvey Keitel..."). Postdlf 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic and also a bad precedent. Piccadilly 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Pixar films aren't special. Recury 02:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting statement : ) - jc37 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categorising actors by the company they worked for once may not be a good idea. See also: Category:Disney people, but more importantly its subcat: Category:Disney actors. Probably not a good trend to start. - jc37 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep are we going to delete all subcats of Category:Voice actors by series? MPS 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant; that's a categorization by television series or franchise, not by production company. Postdlf 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an aside, I should mention that, if it were up to me, most "actor by series" categories would be deleted since the cast list usually appears right in the main article. Only important series with cross-media lists should qualify for their own actor categories. Dugwiki 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this discussion for a modest proposal to limit those. One step at a time... Postdlf 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per Radiant. BTW, there already is Category:Disney voice actors. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dugwiki 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all as nominated. the wub "?!" 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Members of SPa to Category:Members of Socialist Party - Different
• Category:Members of CD and V to Category:Members of Christian Democratic and Flemish
• Category:Members of MR to Category:Members of Reformist Movement
• Category:Members of PS to Category:Members of Parti Socialiste
• Category:Members of cdH to Category:Members of Humanist Democratic Centre
• Category:Members of VU to Category:Members of Volksunie
• Category:Members of VLD to Category:Members of Flemish Liberals and Democrats

expanding abbreviation. - Darwinek 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not eligible for speedy renaming. Hawkestone 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Are all of these a political party? If so should the name include party in some form? As nominated the new name looks odd for most, Category:Members of Parti Socialiste seems to read OK. Vegaswikian 00:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - Acronyms need to be spelled out for clarity and sanity. (I would never guess what a "SPa", "CD and V", or "cdH" are.) George J. Bendo 09:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, avoid abbrev. (Radiant) 13:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In looking these over, I am wondering if they should be in their original language (Dutch?), rather than arbitrarily translated (I've been looking over talk page arguements, as well). I don't believe we should translate proper names. - jc37 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename according to common English translation, but add parenthetical with letters and "Dutch political party" MPS 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If we have a look at Category:Members of SPa we are informed that it is a subcat of Category:Belgian politicians. Would it not suffice to give a full explanation of the category on the category page (the name in Flemish/French, or Dutch/French - Socialist Party - Different uses the word Dutch - the English translation, whatever else needs to be said) rather than trying to cram everything into the title? (There are several other pages in Category:Belgian politicians as well as the 7 above which are abbreviated and/or not anglicised.) Leaving it as SPa avoids the difficulty of anglicising. If we are going to change it, is the word 'Members' actually correct? (Eg the cat. of Members of the UK Labour party is much larger than that of MPs of the UK Labour Party.) Then we can consider renaming Category:Democratic Party of the Left and Democrats of the Left Party members.
  So : oppose rename, propose clarification on each category page. -- roundhouse 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom to unfold acronyms, match parent articles, and per precedent here and here. English names are proper because this is the English language Wikipedia. If Germany is retitled to "Bundesrepublik Deutschland," let me know. Postdlf 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename at least per nom, perhaps including the designation "party" per Vegaswikian or the nationality per MPS. But at least get rid of the acronym. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Cbrown1023 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The name of the first one on its website seems to be sp.a so it should not be expanded (eg BMW, which is neither expanded nor translated, or NATO). If the idea is to anglicise then Volksunie is not English. (I have already voted.) roundhouse 02:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Special forces of the United States to Category:Special operations forces of the United States

• Rename, Old name is not technically a category, but refers to a single organization, the US Army "Green Berets." New name is more generalized and inclusive of other special operations elements in the US military. Nathanm mn 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.